On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 11:01:17AM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 04:26:57PM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
> >>> Note that if someone could explain *why* tol must be > bitrate/fps...
> >>> Cheers,
> >> Ping?
> >
> > IIRC the test is a heuristic, thus the minimum the patch would print isnt much
> > better than 2* of that or 0.5* of it. Values that small cause problems.
> > So i dont want to make it easy to select the smallest value, because that
> > is almost certainly too small.
> >
> Does that mean you forbid the patch? Because as things stand, we have an
> error condition that can be understood only by looking in the code, talk
> about obfuscated behaviour...
No, your patch obfuscates the code, making the user belive that there would
be a minimum which would be ok and below which was not.
>> Besides I have another issues with the current code: It is
> mathematically very dubious since it compares a bitrate*timebase with a
> bitrate!
This is not true, as the tolerance is not in bit/sec.
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
-- Diogenes of Sinope
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080201/14e5a9c4/attachment.pgp>